FRONT ROYAL, VA — There is a consistent theme that unites "progressive" advocates across a wide variety of the Left's cultural causes. These hardened ideologues might make a perfunctory bow in the direction of "rights" and "diversity," but they are united by a common purpose that seeks the ultimate destruction of the principles that form the fabric of the republic.

Most recently, their confidence has swollen to the point where they can cast aside their flimsy façade of support for democracy and attack directly the few protections that remain to defend liberty.

Antonio Gramsci recognized that armed revolution would not prevail in the West, but cultural revolution could. So he advocated what he called the "long march through the institutions." In recent days we have seen the impact of that revolutionary consciousness on three institions, reflected in three specific cases.

The first case addressed California's Proposition 8. This amendment to the state's constitution was approved in 2008 by California voters intent on keeping the definition of marriage unsullied by perverted ideologies. The U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry sealed the death of that initiative, to be sure; but the action of California officials who refused to defend the constitution of the Golden State in the courts inflicted a much deeper wound on the public weal.

Each California state official had sworn an oath to "bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California." Nonetheless, to promote their own private agendas, they turned their backs on their oath, the California Constitution, and the expressed will people of California.

...to promote their own private agendas, they turned their backs on their oath, the California Constitution, and the expressed will of the people of California.

The second case involved the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. The Supreme Court's decision last month in U.S. v. Windsor nullified that law, even though it had passed with broad bipartisan support and was signed by a Democrat president in 1996.

The third case arose in State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman. A six-person jury decided that Zimmerman was not guilty of murder or manslaughter in the slaying of Trayvon Martin.

Each of these cases involved an original manifestation of the popular will using constitutional means. In the Hollingsworth case, Californians defending marriage followed all the rules, suffering heated opposition and harassment from supporters of homosexual unions. In Windsor, a law that had easily passed constitutional muster was nullified because, in essence, Justice Kennedy apparently considers Bill Clinton to be a homophobe.

The People Have Spoken — So What?

Now comes the critical distinction: in the Hollingsworth and Windsor cases, the democratic process came first. Laws preserving marriage were successfully adopted; only then did the ideological attacks come to bear through the courts. Ultimately, a Supreme Court majority succumbed to that pressure, paying little heed to the legitimate constitutional processes that had first brought the laws into being.

...in Zimmerman ... the ideological attack began first, when countless officials, from Obama on down, joined a media-driven mob attempting to keep the case alive, demand a criminal trial. Once scheduled, they endeavored to affect that trial's outcome.

The situation in Zimmerman was the reverse: in this case, the ideological attack began first, when countless officials, from Obama on down, joined a media-driven mob attempting to keep the case alive, demand a criminal trial. Once scheduled, they endeavored to affect that trial's outcome.

But in the Zimmerman case, the people spoke last. Only during the trial itself were the people represented in their own right — specifically, by those citizens randomly chosen to sit on the jury and decide the case.

And the people spoke: the jury unanimously found Zimmerman not guilty of all the charges brought against him.

The pattern is clear: again and again, we see the people speaking plainly, while officials waffle and eventually violate their oaths, meddle in the supposedly sacred judicial process, and ultimately place their own will above that of the people.

Zimmerman is free because the people spoke last. It's that simple.

Consider the irony in all this: the loudest critics of the voice of the people are the self-proclaimed guardians of the "democratic process." Again and again, we see the ideologues of the Left fawning rhetorically over "democracy," only to subvert it whenever it is manifested — whether in the constitutional institutions of the Republic of California, the Republic of Florida, or the Republic of the United States.

Again and again, we see the ideologues of the Left fawning rhetorically over "democracy," only to subvert it whenever it is manifested — whether in the constitutional institutions of the Republic of California, the Republic of Florida, or the Republic of the United States.

On Proposition 8, the Left attacked the people of California through intentional and indolent malfeasance, followed by a judicial procedure marred at every level by ideological bias on the bench. On DOMA, the Left attacked widely-acclaimed legislation that was passed and signed respectively by the Congress and the President. It was the law of the land for 17 years.

And now, the Left is virulently attacking the decision of the Florida jury for letting off a "White Hispanic" who killed a "black kid" who could've looked like Obama's son, if Obama had one.

Al Sharpton, who always draws on the vocabulary of war, calls the verdict an "atrocity," while the "outraged" and "heartbroken" NAACP President Ben Jealous demands that the Justice Department prosecute Zimmerman again.

Admittedly, the two people who would make that decision — Barack Obama and Eric Holder — have defied the laws of the land so cavalierly that the table-pounders might just get their way. After all, Obama and Holder have every reason to foment among blacks a distrust of the justice system — while they do their best to pervert it themselves.

One would think that the Left would celebrate the Constitutional guarantee of the right to trial by jury. But the "Lovers of Democracy" actually hate the democratic process when it gets in the way of the revolution. In this, the Left is both predictable and brazen: they love power, and they have "marched through the institutions."

One would think that the Left would celebrate the Constitutional guarantee of the right to trial by jury. But the "Lovers of Democracy" actually hate the democratic process when it gets in the way of the revolution. In this, the Left is both predictable and brazen: they love power, and they have "marched through the institutions."

But the Left must divide before it can conquer, and the dividing will continue — gay versus straight, white versus black, rich versus poor, citizen versus illegal, men versus women. The last thing Big Brother wants is truth, peace, and harmony. Remember, Karl Marx insisted that struggle and envy are the engines of history.

Confessional Afterthoughts

For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest;
neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.
Luke 8:17

Curious how the media concentrate their attention on Edward Snowden, who told the world about the U.S. Government's vast domestic spying system. Apparently, no one is worried about the several million government bureaucrats, suppliers, appartchiks, and contractors who have access to that information.

"Oh, but they wouldn't use it," we are told. "That would be illegal."

Yeah, right.

Folks, inside the Beltway you're ethical if you're not in jail. Are we to believe that Edward Snowden is the only individual among those several million who would "go rogue" and break the law?

Catholics especially should ponder the consequences of the NSA's version of Big Brother's Thought Police.

Consider:

It's after midnight. A crashing sound, coming from the porch, awakens you. The front door bursts open, the lock broken, as you round the corner from the bedroom.

"Hands up, hands up," shouts one intruder. Another, assault rifle at the ready, surveys the foyer from left to right, right to left, back to right again.

"What do you want — our money? Take our money," you shout, your hands still waving in the air.

"We don't want your money, we're the police."

"The police? What is this, a drug bust? " You laugh, lowering your hands. "You've got the wrong house, officer."

"Hands up, mister! We've got the right house. You're under arrest."

"For what? I haven't done anything wrong."

"Last Saturday afternoon at 4:10 in the afternoon, at Saint John's parish, you confessed that you hated the president. That's a felony."

"Whaddya mean? That's a sin, it's not a crime!" You shudder as you notice your sleepy-eyed daughter peering through a crack in her bedroom door.

"It's a hate crime, bub."

"B – b- but how do you know what I said in Confession?" you stammer.

"Your cell phone was in your pocket, pal."

"But I always turn it OFF," you shout.

"It might be off for you, buster, but it's never off for us. Now turn around and put your hands behind your back like a good chap."

Christopher Manion is Director of the Campaign for Humanae Vitae™, a project of the Bellarmine Forum. He
served as a staff director on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for many years. He has taught in the departments of politics, religion, and international relations at Boston University, the Catholic University of America, and Christendom College. This column is sponsored by the Bellarmine
Forum.